The relationship shared between a journalist and their source is a tenuous one. Without this legislation -- in this day and age -- that relationship will cease to exist at all.
The Bush regime is trying to deliver the coup de grâce to the rule of law as we know it by making sure there are no anonymous sources to report it.
Ok, anytime the current inhabitants of the White House go to the trouble of making a website, trying to gin up support for/against something, you can bet your bottom dollar that "something" is bad for democracy, and by extension... the American people.
This website is no exception...
To the length the White House is going to change minds on Capitol Hill rivals that of the pressure they applied to proponents of the FISA bill sans the immunity clause. With haughty statements by AG Mukasey and DNI McConnell (pdf), DHS Secretary Chertoff (pdf), and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (pdf), it’s clear to anyone paying attention to the past 8 lonnnnnnggg years, that the regime is trying to cover their collective asses for corruption, criminality and/or treason... already perpetrated.
Don’t be mistaken. The legislature co-sponsored by Sens. Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee does not give journalists immunity, but instead would give judges the discretion to assign a "public interest" value to certain news stories based on information from confidential sources. That leaves it completely to a judge’s discretion. So, the idea that the Bush regime is raising these objections in the interest of national security is simply preposterous. They’re trying to marginalize the judicial branch in the same way they’ve managed to marginalize the legislative branch.
The Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 2008 passed in the House of Representatives on October 16, 2007 by a majority vote of 398-21
The need for the media shield law became clear after the case of blogger and freelance videographer Josh Wolf, who, in July 2006 defied a federal grand jury's order to hand over raw footage of anarchists clashing with police in San Francisco. He said he was protected by the 1st Amendment. A federal judge said he was in contempt of court.
Specter and Leahy are to be commended for this legislation even though I don’t feel it goes far enough. But, Specter’s being targeted right now and he’s already indicated that his staff will be considering the changes proposed by the White House.
Fox News.com has the story:
The Bush administration is pushing for the Senate to drop a media shield law that officials say could jeopardize national security, launching a Department of Justice Web site on Thursday aimed at drawing support for administration proposals instead.
It hasn't been a secret that the administration doesn't have much affection for the media shield bills in the House and Senate. Officials often cite national security concerns as a reason to object to the bill and the general concept of media shield.
(snip)
Supporters of the media shield bills say they want to provide protection to journalists who — by necessity, according to some news organizations — cite anonymous sources in reporting sensitive stories. It is an attempt by lawmakers in both bodies to stem what they say is a tide of judges forcing journalists into court, fining or even jailing them in an attempt to get to sources of government leaks.
Last fall, the House approved its version of the media shield law. The Senate has yet to vote on the Free Flow of Information Act, which was passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senators Leahy and Specter have sent a letter to Senate majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Ranking member Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urging a quick vote on the bill, adding that its passage would protect journalists who would otherwise face felony charges for trying to protect their reluctant sources:
"We need to protect the relationship between reporters and their sources and to strike a proper balance between (a) the need to maintain the free flow of information to journalists and, through a free press, to the public, and (b) the need for effective law enforcement and national security," the lawmakers wrote last month in a joint letter to Reid and McConnell.
"Scores of reporters have been questioned by federal prosecutors about their sources, notes and reports in recent years, and there is definitely a chilling effect as a result," the lawmakers wrote.
But, Specter is wavering. He and his staff are currently weighing the letters by Bush regime officials, which say the "proposed law goes beyond its intent," and that the legislation gives judges the decision over whether national security is compromised and extends coverage beyond journalists."
"These investigations are integral to our mission, yet the sought-after information is often volatile and available only within a very limited timeframe. The proposed bill erects significant evidentiary burdens to obtaining critical information from anyone who can claim to be a journalist, including bloggers and communications service providers, such as Internet service providers. These roadblocks delay the collection of critical information and ensure that criminals have opportunities to avoid detection, continue their potentially dangerous operations, and further obfuscate their illegal activities," Chertoff wrote Thursday in matching letters to Reid, McConnell, Leahy, Specter and Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, who run the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
Mukasey and McConnell closed their letter by adding that the bill is, "both unwise and unnecessary. Unwise because the statutory privilege created by this legislation would work a significant change in existing federal law with potentially dramatic consequences for our ability to protect the national security and investigate other crimes; and unnecessary because all evidence indicates that the free flow of information has continued unabated in the absence of a federal reporter's privilege."
Trust us. What a load of crap...
Here’s the Huffington Post’s take on the bill:
Media Shield Law Protecting Journalists Opposed By Bush Admin
And, here’s the Senate Judiciary Committee website:
Senate Judiciary Committee
Contact Individual Committee Members
CONTACT INFORMATION:
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Democratic Phone: (202) 224-7703
Democratic Fax: (202) 224-9516
Republican Phone: (202) 224-5225
Republican Fax: (202) 224-9102
You know what to do.
Peace